Helicopter Cruising Greenland Ice Sheet

“To Make Fracturing Safer,” editorial, in May 11, 2012, begins “Gas … is cleaner than coal” and concludes “Oil and and gas drilling will always be a risky business; the administration cannot let pass this opportunity to make it safer.”

Clean and Green within 18 is the opportunity the Administration should not let pass. We should - MUST - shift to 100% sustainable energy in 18 years! Solar, wind and other sustainable energy systems do not require fuel and day-to-day operations do not create waste. Thus these “negafuelwatt” systems are clean; not just “cleaner than coal.” And they are also cleaner than oil, gas, and nuclear power.

Back in the 1970′s, Amory Lovins, who later founded the Rocky Mountain Institute coined the term Negawatts. “The least expensive unit of energy, Lovins said, is the one you don’t have to buy.  It’s also the cleanest.  I may have been the first to use the term Nega-Fuel-Watt: The next least expensive, and next cleanest sources of energy DON’T USE FUEL!

The Times assertion that “gas … is cleaner than coal” is not a ringing endorsement. The deep ice of the Antarctic, the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the glaciers of the Himalayas are clean. The beaches of the Emerald Coast of Florida were clean.  Operating rooms in hospitals should be clean. But coal is incredibly dirty. In addition to carbon dioxide, mining, transporting, and burning coal releases into the biosphere a mess of toxic heavy metals from A to Z, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, thorium, uranium, and zinc. “Cleaner than coal,” is like “more humanitarian than Bashir al Assad.”  Almost everything is cleaner than coal.

But we don’t know if gas from fracking is cleaner or more polluting than coal. The 2005 Bush Cheney Energy Bill created the so-called “Halliburton Loophole” (see earth works action, and enviropolitics blog) which exempted gas drilling from the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. We don’t know what’s in the millions of gallons of wastewater per well that must be cleaned or how much time, energy and resources will be required to clean that water.

We do know that solar, wind, geothermal, marine current, and other sustainable energy systems  are cleaner than coal, oil, fracking, and nuclear power systems because they do not require fuel and therefore, once deployed, and other than maintanence and decommissioning, do not create an ongoing waste stream.

This is the opportunity that the Administration should not let pass: “Putting in place the systems that will shift the paradigm to 100% renewable and sustainable energy in 10 to 25 years.” We could do it. President Kennedy challenged this nation to “Send a man to the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years.” We didn’t have the technology. But we had the will and we found the way. Not just once, but six times (NASA / Wikipedia). This challenge is both easier and harder. We have the technology.  But we need to do it on a very large scale. And we need the will.

Apple HQ, Cupertino, California

Back in 1965, IBM CEO Thomas J. Watson, Jr, wrote, in IBM’s Basic Beliefs & Principles,

“We accept our responsibilities as a corporate citizen in community, national, and world affairs; we serve our interests best when we serve the public interest…. We want to be at the forefront of those companies which are working to make the world a better place.”

Today, IBM says “Sustainability is no longer an option. Sustainability is an imperative.” IBM is focused on making data centers and supply chains more efficient, and providing their customers with tools to become less unsustainable (IBM green blog). The European Commission awarded IBM for energy efficiency at 27 data centers (IBM Press Release).

However, it looks to me that Google and Apple are one or two steps ahead of IBM. Google has invested $915 Million in solar arrays, which should be 1.0 to 1.5 MW. Apple is putting a 5MW solar array on the roof of it’s headquarters in Cupertino, pictured above, and described here on Treehugger and here on 9to5mac. Apple is also using solar and biofuel to power it’s new data center in South Carolina (article in Renewable Energy World). Essentially:

• A 100-acre, 20 megawatt (MW) solar array, supplying 42 million kWh of energy each year.
• A 5 MW biogas system to come online later this year, providing another 40 million kWh of 24×7 baseload renewable energy annually. Apple claims this will be the largest non-utility-owned fuel cell installation in the US.
• Combined, that’s 82 million kWh/year of onsite renewable energy generation at the facility.

For more details, see the 2012 Apple Facilities Report.

Apple’s building may be a derivative design of the Widex headquarters, in Allerød, Denmark, described on Widex home page,  here. The Widex building is a ring that surrounds a large atrium courtyard to be planted with grass, flowers and trees and is according to Widex,”designed to be both pleasant to look at and be in…. and environmentally friendly

Heat for the building will be supplied by a geothermal system, where groundwater is used like a heat reservoir; excess heat in summer can be stored and used when needed during winter. Our ambition is to reduce energy consumption by 75 percent compared to traditional technology.

Apple, Google, and IBM report high profits. Their stock prices are also high, perhaps demonstrating the correlation between doing well and doing good.

Tweet

The Newark Star Ledger reported (here and here) that Public Service Electric and Gas, PSE&G, a subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, is installing a  2,700-ton chiller the University of Medicine and Dentristy of New Jersey, UMDNJ. This an $11.4 million investment in negawatts. The Star Ledger reported that UMDNJ will save $1.3 million per year on energy costs.What’s the payback? An $11.4 million investment will save $1.3 million per year. That means the system will pay for itself within 9 years, assuming the price of energy remains constant.  I think it’s a much more reasonable to assume that the price of energy will go up, so the payback will be higher and the system will pay for itself sooner.

The system will work long after it is paid for. It will save $13 Million over the next 10 years and $26 Million over the next 20 years – assuming electricity costs are constant.  Assuming electricity costs increase an average of 5% per year, this will save $16.35 Million over the next 10 years, and $42.99 over the next 20 years.

• Projected Savings of $11.4 Million investment.
• After 1 Year: $1.3 Million, a return on investment of 11.4% in one year.
• After 5 Years: Save $7.18 Million, for a total ROI of 63%, assuming a 5% annual increases in cost of energy.
• After 10 Years:  Save $16.35 M; total ROI of 143.4%).
• After 15 Years: Save $28.05 M; total ROI of (246%)
• After 20 Years: Save $42.99 M; total ROI of 377%).

We have Governor Corzine to thank. as well as Governors Whitman, McGreevey, Codey, and Christie.

More on the PSE&G Green Solutions is here.

UMDNJ will pay $2.7 million over the next three years. PSE&G’s Hospital Efficiency Program will fund the $8.7 million balance.

Back in March, 2009, Jon Corzine, then-Governor of New Jersey, signed a package of renewable energy bills (here).

1. People may install solar energy systems and wind turbines on industrial properties 20 acres or larger.
2. Developers must offer home buyers a solar energy option, on developments with 25 or more units, including single family homes and condos.
3. The Board of Public Utilities may give grants for energy efficiency programs.

At a press conference in March, ’09, Corzine said the new laws further New Jersey’s efforts to protect the environment, reduce dependence on foreign oil and, “a cleaner New Jersey means a better New Jersey, and an even more attractive place for people to live, work, run a business and raise a family.”

When he did this he acted on policies set in place by the BPU under Gov. McGreevey and continued by Acting Gov. Codey. McGreevey, in turn, was carrying the ball thrown by Gov. Whitman.  Popular Logistics hopes that Gov. Christie continues to carry this ball.

Back in 2009, Senate Environment Committee chair Bob Smith, D-Middlesex, said developing clean energy sources will help on a number of levels, including global warming, energy sustainability, and reducing overall pollution. “We should be doing everything in government to foster carbonless energy sources.”

Assembly Republicans, however, called the first two laws “an intrusion on private or municipal rule.”

“I just don’t believe the state should be using a broad brush approach to locating these wind turbines in all industrial zones,” Assemblyman Vincent Polistina (R-Atlantic) said. “Municipalities should have the right to zone where they see fit.” Polistina should realize that this gives energy entrepreneurs the right to install wind turbines on (moderately large) properties, but not the obligation to do so.

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris) said if homeowners “wanted to install solar energy or energy saving devices into their homes they could do that on their own without Trenton telling them to discuss the matter.”  This may be the case, however, the economics logistics and financial ramifications of solar energy remain largely unknown. Again, home buyers have the right to a solar energy system. They are forced to buy one.

This is a silly argument. The first and second laws allow people to build wind and solar. They do not, however, compel people to do so.

They do prohibit people from taking a “NIMBY A NIYBYE – BANANA!” (“Not in My Backyard And Not In Your Backyard Either – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything”) approach and preventing their neighbors from exercising their right to invest in clean, renewable, sustainable energy.
We may have the right to be stupid, short-sighted, ignorant of science, and in denial about things scientists tell us their data indicate. However, we elect representatives to various houses in the hope and expectation that they are not stupid, short-sighted, ignorant, and in denial.

Earlier today one of my friends handed me a copy of some satire published in the New York Post, a tabloid in the tradition of the London rags, on the subject of “Climate-Gate.”  At about the same time, Roger Saillant, co-author of Vapor Trails, who heads the Fowler Center for Sustainable Value at Case Western Reserve University pointed me to Elizabeth May’s post on the hacked computers and stolen e-mails at East Anglia University. Ms. May leads Canada’s Green Party.

Patrick Michaels, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is really a public relations arm of Exxon Mobil, was once a scientist at the University of Virginia.  He is famous for giving testimony attacking Dr. James Hansen to the U.S. Senate. However, when interviewed by Elizabeth May on Canada’s CBC Sunday Morning’s “Kyoto on Trial” in 2002, Michaels admitted to redrawing Hansen’s graph to make it wrong. Michaels, who has traded the scientific method for Stanislavsky’s acting method, admitted to perjury in his testimony before the United States Senate.

The graph shows the amount of sea ice from July thru November from 1979 to 2000, then in 2005, 7, 8, and July thru Sept., 2009. It is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder Colorado (here) published Oct. 6, 2009. The dark gray line shows Arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2000. The gray band shows 2 standard deviations from the mean. The colorful lines show that Arctic sea ice is at or well below two standard deviations from the mean levels of 1979 to 2000.  Clearly there is less ice in the Arctic then there used to be.

I can say “You can question climate change at your own peril.” And you can say “Larry Furman, on Popular Logistics, says “you can question climate change.” Phil Jones, at East Anglica, said “when I wrote, in 1999, that  ‘we can use Mike’s trick in presenting the data,’ I used the word ‘trick’ in a colloquial manner.” He meant Mike has this neat technique, I wish I thought of it.” Not “we will use this sleight of hand to fool the rubes.”

There are a few truths that, to use Al Gore’s term, are inconvenient

About 120 years ago, Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish scientist, observed that dramatically increasing Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere could effect the climate. He thought a warmer world would be a good thing – a longer summer in Sweden would yield a longer growing season and other benefits.

Back then, circa 1890, the world’s human population stood at about 1.5 billion. Today it stands at about 6.7 billion. The concentration of carbon dioxide is estimated to have been 285 parts per million before industrialization and the widespread use of fossil fuels. Today it fluctuates around 385 ppm.  It is highest in April / May and lowest in Sept. / Oct. The annual variation has to do with carbon dioxide sequestered in green plants during the spring and summer.

You could argue that 385 parts per million is not a lot of stuff. But if 285 is “normal” and you quickly increase the concentration by 35% something is going to happen. A resilient system, and big complex systems tend to be resilient, might absorb the dose. If the dose quickly drops back to normal, there might be some scarring, and a quick recovery. Think of someone who eats bad food, gets sick, throws up, feels better. Or a beach that gets hit by a storm.

Suppose you have three drinks. Your blood alcohol level is 0.06 – under the limit for mandatory DUI conviction. Then you have a fourth drink. Your blood alcohol level is now 0.081. You are, as Sarah Palin might say, “Drilled, baby drilled.”

But here’s the thing. Forget climate, forget icebergs polar bears, and glaciers. Think national security and the economy. Don’t think oil or fossil fuel, think “magic rocks” and “magic gel.” We buy oil – magic gel – from the Persian Gulf, Niger, Venezuela, and Canada. The Canadians are our friends. Those other guys, I don’t know about you, but they don’t like my people (and the feelings are mutual).  As far as the magic rocks, we have them here, but burning them produces a lot of toxic dirt – toxics that spoil food and kill fish in lakes. It seems to be cheap, but when you factor in the costs of cleaning up the mess it’s very expensive.  Still, we need that stuff. Our whole system is built on burning these magic rocks and magic gel. And when we burn them we push carbon dioxide, water vapor, mercury, arsenic, radionucleotides, and other stuff into the air we breath, the water we drink and food we eat.

So what do we do? Well, a military occupation of one of those countries that has a lot of the magic gel might be a good idea, especially if the ruler is an unpopular tyrant who kills his own people. But wouldn’t it be better if we used “magic modules” that converted sunlight into electricity? And “magic turbines” that could harness the power of the winds and marine currents? And use the heat of the earth to warm and cool our buildings?

We can.

We will.

Maybe not tomorrow, maybe 5 or 10 or 50 years from now. Maybe we need see a few more hurricanes like Katrina. Maybe we need to lose southern Florida and one or two of the Keys. Maybe we need to see Key West go from being a tourist attraction to a SCUBA excursion. Maybe then we’ll take action.

One last point. A Chinese diplomat in Copenhagen said, “It’s as if the West is at a dinner party, China is joining for dessert, and the West is sticking China with the bill.” That’s a bad metaphor. It’s more like we are in an opium den, we are stoned out of our minds, we’re one toke away from a fatal overdose, and China is banging on the door trying to get in while there is still some dope left to smoke – and they want to mainline it straight into the carotid artery.

Solar. Wind. Geothermal. Marine Current Kinetic. Negawatts. Clean Energy. No Waste.

Burning fossil fuels and using nuclear power create tremendous waste problems.  Harnessing the sun, the wind, and the heat of the earth use energy with no fuel – therefore no pollution. The question is Eco-Watts v Killer-Watts. The choice is ours!

Back in the late ’1970′s Amory Lovins , a physicist, coined the term “NegaWatts” to describe the energy that could be saved with conservation and efficiency. “The cheapest energy,” he said, “and the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.” A negawatt is a unit of power not consumed.

Lovins’ associate, Marvin Resnikoff, PhD, another physicist, currently at Radioactive Waste Management Associates, then teaching environmental thinking at SUNY University of Buffalo – Rachel Carson College, used the term “nuclear constipation” to describe the nuclear waste problem. It’s an apt metaphor – the waste doesn’t go away.

We are struggling not only with nuclear constipation, but carbon constipation. We burn carbon to get from place to place, to heat and cool our homes. But the carbon doesn’t go away. It goes into the air from under the ground. To paraphrase Al Gore,

We are borrowing from China to buy oil from the middle east and pull coal out of the ground to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. But enough wind blows through the midwest corridor in a day, enough sunlight falls on the earth in FORTY MINUTES to provide the power we need for a year.

Harnessing the wind, the sun, and the earth eliminates these problems. Rather than burning a fuel; wind, solar, and geothermal harness a process. The sun shines whether or not we use solar panels to capture some photons. The wind blows regardless of our decision to use a few particles to spin a turbine. We are hitchin’ a ride on a moving train.

Negawatts – units of power not consumed.

Eco-watts – units of power generated by clean energy systems, by harnessing a process rather than consuming a fuel.

Killer-watts – units of power generated by consuming a fuel, which produces a quantity of pollution, such as carbon dioxide, radioactive wastes, mercury, arsenic, etc.